Facade payback would kill the RDA program
The city’s facade improvement program will not survive if
council members decide to end a provision that forgives loans for
the repairs after a set period of time.
In re-opening discussions on the Hollister Redevelopment Agency
program next month, council members must maintain the section that
now forgives the loans after 10 years if owners keep their
properties that entire time. Just last year, city council members
scrutinized the facade improvement program guidelines and ended up
extending the required ownership statute from five years to the
current 10. Councilman Robert Scattini was elected in November,
though, and brought up some of his own concerns
– particularly the payback policy – at a recent meeting.
Facade payback would kill the RDA program
The city’s facade improvement program will not survive if council members decide to end a provision that forgives loans for the repairs after a set period of time.
In re-opening discussions on the Hollister Redevelopment Agency program next month, council members must maintain the section that now forgives the loans after 10 years if owners keep their properties that entire time. Just last year, city council members scrutinized the facade improvement program guidelines and ended up extending the required ownership statute from five years to the current 10. Councilman Robert Scattini was elected in November, though, and brought up some of his own concerns – particularly the payback policy – at a recent meeting.
It is always healthy to re-examine such programs, and officials might even find some minor flaws by doing so. The payback policy, though, acts as the ultimate incentive for property owners, most who likely would not apply for the offer without it.
As planning official Bill Avera pointed out, it isn’t as if property owners are lining up at the door wanting to take part in the program. There have been 27 agreements over the last decade, or less than three per year, while the city’s RDA budgets about $100,000 annually.
The purpose is not to act merely as a money giveaway for local property or business owners. Theoretically, the idea is to enhance the entire district through beautification by increasing property values – which results in a direct tax revenue boost – and to gain foot traffic to local merchants and additional sales tax funds for the city coffers.
There is a potential residual impact as well, because property owners surrounding other buildings taking advantage of the subsidy might notice the improvements and decide to fix their properties, too. Plus, it’s not as if the property owners taking part have no stake.
They have to show their commitment beyond staying for 10 years – if they leave earlier, they owe the entire loan amount plus 7 percent interest – by investing in the upgrades themselves. Under the program, the city pays a three-to-one ratio on improvements for owners in the downtown area.
For other owners outside downtown, but in the RDA district, the city pays out with a two-to-one ratio.
While it certainly is worth taking a look at the guidelines and applicable uses for the funds, the city’s funding contribution appears to make a lot of sense and attracts a manageable number of applicants.
As for the payback policy, it acts as a foundation for recruiting into the program. And if the program works the way it should, if the city and business community work together toward enhancing the overall shopping experience, then both sides should more than gain back their investments for many years to come.
